This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/28/2021 at 11:57:23 (UTC).

ANABELL RUIZ NUNEZ VS FCA US LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/23/2016 ANABELL RUIZ NUNEZ filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against FCA US LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are EDWARD B. MORETON, JR., ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE, EDWARD B. MORETON, DANIEL S. MURPHY and LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4827

  • Filing Date:

    12/23/2016

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

EDWARD B. MORETON, JR.

ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE

EDWARD B. MORETON

DANIEL S. MURPHY

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Petitioners, Respondents, Appellants and Plaintiffs

NUNEZ ANABELL RUIZ

FCA US LLC

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-10

FCA US LLC

ALHAMBRA CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE INC

UNKNOWN ENTITY DBA "BRAVO CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM" UNKNOWN ENTITY DBA "BRAVO CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM"

Defendants, Respondents, Appellants and Plaintiffs

DOES 1-10

NUNEZ ANABELL RUIZ

FCA US LLC

ALHAMBRA CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE INC

Not Classified By Court

JANNEY & JANNEY

NEILLY MARCO

KNOX ATTORNEY SERVICES

PARK JULIE

HONG ELSEY JANE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES APC

MOORE JULIAN ALEXANDER

BROWER STEVEN JOEL

HAW CHRISTINE J.

Defendant Attorney

PROUDFOOT DOUGLAS A.

 

Court Documents

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF REBECCA NEUBAUER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

9/15/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF REBECCA NEUBAUER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

Appeal - Remittitur - Other - APPEAL - REMITTITUR - OTHER JUDGMENT AND POSTJUDGMENT ORDER REVERSED AND REMANDED: NONSUIT ORDER AFFIRMED. B299208

4/29/2021: Appeal - Remittitur - Other - APPEAL - REMITTITUR - OTHER JUDGMENT AND POSTJUDGMENT ORDER REVERSED AND REMANDED: NONSUIT ORDER AFFIRMED. B299208

Objection - OBJECTION PLAINTIFFS EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MATTHEW M. PROUDFOOT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES

6/7/2019: Objection - OBJECTION PLAINTIFFS EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MATTHEW M. PROUDFOOT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES

Request for Judicial Notice

6/13/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

NOTICE OF FIRM NAME CHANGE

9/20/2018: NOTICE OF FIRM NAME CHANGE

Opposition - Opposition Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Montion in Limine No. 9 "To Exclude Testimony Regarding Substantial Impairment"

1/3/2019: Opposition - Opposition Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Montion in Limine No. 9 "To Exclude Testimony Regarding Substantial Impairment"

Opposition - Opposition Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 11 "To Exclude Items Never Presented Within the Express Warranty"

1/3/2019: Opposition - Opposition Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 11 "To Exclude Items Never Presented Within the Express Warranty"

Stipulation, Receipt and Order re: Release of Civil Exhibits

1/11/2019: Stipulation, Receipt and Order re: Release of Civil Exhibits

Special Verdict - Special Verdict Regarding Cause of Action No. 2

1/11/2019: Special Verdict - Special Verdict Regarding Cause of Action No. 2

Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

2/26/2019: Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

Notice of Hearing of Motion for New Trial

3/5/2019: Notice of Hearing of Motion for New Trial

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING POST TR...)

3/14/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING POST TR...)

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT

3/28/2019: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT

Appeal - Notice of Appeal/Cross Appeal Filed

5/2/2019: Appeal - Notice of Appeal/Cross Appeal Filed

Notice - NOTICE OF ORDER

5/3/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF ORDER

Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103

5/16/2019: Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103

200 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/29/2021
  • Hearing10/29/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Proof of Judgment Being Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2021
  • Docketat 1:39 PM in Department 32, Daniel S. Murphy, Presiding; Ruling on Submitted Matter

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Ruling on Submitted Matter) of 10/01/2021); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Ruling on Submitted Matter)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2021
  • DocketOrder (re Defendant FCA US LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Daniel S. Murphy, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Daniel S. Murphy, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Daniel S. Murphy, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Strike Arguments Raised for the First Time in Defendant's Reply In Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication) - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment; Trial Setting Confere...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2021
  • DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

    Read MoreRead Less
342 More Docket Entries
  • 01/24/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Anabell Ruiz Nunez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Anabell Ruiz Nunez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/23/2016
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/23/2016
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/23/2016
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Anabell Ruiz Nunez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2010
  • DocketMotion to Compel; Filed by Anabell Ruiz Nunez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: BC644827 Hearing Date: September 29, 2021 Dept: 32

\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n

\r\n

anabell\r\n ruiz nunez,

\r\n

Plaintiff,

\r\n

v.

\r\n

\r\n

FCA US LLC, et al.,

\r\n

Defendants.\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

Case No.: BC644827

\r\n

Hearing Date: September 29, 2021

\r\n

\r\n

[TENTATIVE]\r\n order RE:

\r\n

DEFENDANT fca us llc’s motion for\r\n summary judgment

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n\r\n

BACKGROUND

\r\n\r\n

a.\r\nFactual Background

\r\n\r\n

This is a “lemon law” case arising under\r\nthe Song-Beverly Act (Civ. Code, §§ 1790 et seq.). The vehicle at the center of\r\nthis dispute is a 2011 Jeep Patriot (“Vehicle”) manufactured by Defendant FCA\r\nUS LLC (“Defendant”). The Vehicle was purchased new in December 2010 and came\r\nwith a three-year warranty. (UMF No. 1.) The original owner brought the Vehicle\r\nin for repair once in September 2013, where the Vehicle’s throttle body was\r\nreplaced. (Ibid.) In October 2013, Plaintiff Anabell Ruiz Nunez (“Plaintiff”)\r\npurchased the Vehicle used. At the time, Plaintiff received the balance of the\r\nfollowing warranties: (1) three-year/36,000-mile basic warranty; (2)\r\nfive-year/100,000-mile powertrain warranty; (3) seven-year/70,000-mile\r\nCalifornia long-term emissions warranty; and (4) eight-year/100,000-mile LEV\r\nII+ emissions warranty. (UMF No. 3; AMF No. 2.)

\r\n\r\n

From June 2016 to March 2017, Plaintiff\r\npresented the Vehicle to the dealer for repairs four times. (UMF Nos. 5-8.)\r\nPlaintiff complained that the Vehicle was shaking and unable to move faster\r\nthan 10-15 miles per hour. (Ibid.) For the first two repairs on June 20\r\nand October 17, 2020, the dealer replaced the Vehicle’s throttle body. (UMF\r\nNos. 5-6.) For the last two repairs on October 20, 2016 and March 28, 2017, the\r\ndealer replaced the throttle body connector. (UMF Nos. 7-8.) Plaintiff\r\nalso took the Vehicle in for repairs in June 2018 and January 2020 for similar\r\nissues. (AMF Nos. 19-20.)

\r\n\r\n

b.\r\nProcedural History

\r\n\r\n

The case has since gone to trial, where\r\nthe jury rendered a verdict in Plaintiff’s favor, and Defendant appealed. In an\r\nopinion dated February 26, 2021, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed\r\nthe judgment and remanded to this Court on the grounds that the Court gave an\r\nimproper jury instruction not in line with the provisions of the Act. (Ruiz\r\nNunez v. FCA US LLC (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 385, 389.) In doing so, the Court\r\nof Appeal interpreted the provisions of the Act dealing with the tolling of\r\nwarranty periods and found that the three-year basic warranty in this case had\r\nexpired by the time Plaintiff first presented the Vehicle for repairs. (Id.\r\nat p. 397.)

\r\n\r\n

Defendant now moves for summary judgment\r\non the grounds that it cannot be disputed that all of the repairs during\r\nPlaintiff’s ownership of the Vehicle took place outside the warranty period. In\r\nopposition, Plaintiff claims that the repairs were covered by the\r\nseven-year/70,000-mile and eight-year/100,000-mile emissions warranties.

\r\n\r\n

The Court grants Defendant’s request\r\nfor judicial notice of materials relating to the legislative history of the\r\nAct. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.)

\r\n\r\n

EVIDENTIARY\r\nOBJECTIONS

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff has not filed any objections.\r\nDefendant’s objections are overruled.

\r\n\r\n

LEGAL STANDARD

\r\n\r\n

The function of a motion for summary\r\njudgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing\r\nparty cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an\r\norder of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic\r\nRichfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Code of Civil Procedure section\r\n437c, subdivision (c) “requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if\r\nall the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the\r\nevidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there\r\nis no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is\r\nentitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp.\r\n(1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) “The function of the pleadings in a motion\r\nfor summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the\r\naffidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of\r\nfact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.” (Juge v. County of\r\nSacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67, citing FPI Development, Inc. v.\r\nNakashima (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 367, 381-382.)

\r\n\r\n

As to each claim as framed by the\r\ncomplaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial\r\nburden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to\r\nestablish a defense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Scalf v. D. B.\r\nLog Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520.) Courts “liberally\r\nconstrue the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and\r\nresolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold\r\nWorldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

\r\n\r\n

Once the defendant has met that burden,\r\nthe burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more\r\nmaterial facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.

\r\n\r\n

To\r\nestablish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must\r\nproduce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68\r\nCal.App.4th 151, 166.)

\r\n\r\n

DISCUSSION

\r\n\r\n

a.\r\nThree-Year/36,000-Mile Basic Warranty

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff seems to take issue with\r\nDefendant’s contention that the original owner’s single repair visit in\r\nSeptember 2013 “resolved” the problem with the Vehicle. (See Opp. 13:13-17.)\r\nPlaintiff argues that because Defendant admits there was a warranty repair in\r\nSeptember 2013 regarding the engine and throttle body, this means that the four\r\nsubsequent repairs undertaken by Plaintiff were under warranty as well. (Opp.\r\n13:7-11.)

\r\n\r\n

However, the Court of Appeal expressly\r\nheld that the September 2013 visit “resolved the problem for two and a half\r\nyears after the expiration of the stated term of the warranty.” (Ruiz Nunez,\r\nsupra, 61 Cal.App.5th at p. 397.) The Court refused to interpret the Act as\r\nallowing a vehicle owner to have a claim over any latent defect that remains\r\nundiagnosed. (Ibid.) Even if the same problem occurs after a repair made\r\nduring the warranty period, the warranty is not tolled unless the manufacturer\r\nis notified within 60 days that the repair did not resolve the issue. (Civ.\r\nCode, § 1795.6, subd. (b)(2).) Otherwise, “the warranty would never expire\r\nunless a repair performed under warranty forever foreclosed the possibility of\r\na recurring malfunction . . . .” (Ruiz Nunez, supra, 61 Cal.App.5th at\r\np. 397.) Thus, there is no triable issue regarding the three-year/36,000-mile\r\nbasic warranty.

\r\n\r\n

b.\r\nCalifornia Emissions Warranties

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff instead attempts to raise\r\na triable issue by arguing that she presented the Vehicle for repairs at least\r\nsix times during the periods of the California emissions warranties. (Opp.\r\n13:16-21.) However, Plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient to raise a triable\r\nissue that the repairs were covered by the emissions warranties. Plaintiff’s\r\nexpert, Anthony Andreoni, never opines that the issues with the Vehicle were\r\nemissions problems or that any of the parts replaced were covered by the\r\nemissions warranties. In summarizing the Vehicle’s repair history, Andreoni\r\nrepeatedly avers that the repairs were made “under warranty” but does not\r\nspecify which warranty. (See Andreoni Decl. ¶¶ 12-19.) Plaintiff emphasizes the\r\nsimilar Power Control Module (“PCM”) fault codes that were diagnosed in each\r\nrepair. (Opp. 10:15-11:4.) However, Plaintiff cites no evidence that these\r\nrepair codes indicate a fault with the PCM or any other emissions-related part.\r\n

\r\n\r\n

c.\r\nDefendant’s Discovery Responses

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff argues that even if the\r\nemissions warranties do not apply, Defendant admitted that Plaintiff presented\r\nthe Vehicle for repairs under warranty. (Opp. 12:3-13.) However, Defendant made\r\nno such admission. Defendant’s responses state that “FCA US admits that repair\r\nrecords reflect that the 2011 Jeep Patriot, VIN 1J4NT1GB0BD105816 was delivered\r\nto an authorized service or repair facility during the warranty period.” (Ibid.)\r\nThis is consistent with the fact that the original owner presented the Vehicle\r\nfor repair during the three-year/36,000-mile basic warranty.

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff argues that the requests\r\nasked Defendant to admit that Plaintiff presented the Vehicle for\r\nrepairs during the warranty period, and since Defendant did not identify those admissions\r\nas qualified in its responses to form interrogatories, the admissions were\r\nunqualified. (Opp. 12:15-13:4.) Thus, Plaintiff argues that no matter how Defendant\r\nexplained its responses, they were unqualified admissions that Plaintiff\r\npresented the Vehicle for repairs during the warranty period. (Ibid.)\r\nHowever, a party responding to requests for admission is not required to admit\r\nthe entirety of the request. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (b)(1) [requiring\r\neach answer to admit “so much of the matter involved in the request as is true\r\n. . . .”].) In this case, the request was true to the extent that the Vehicle was\r\npresented for repairs during the warranty period, but Defendant specifically\r\ndeclined to admit that Plaintiff presented the Vehicle.

\r\n\r\n

Even if Defendant’s responses were\r\nimproper, Plaintiff never brought a motion to deem matters admitted, a\r\nrequirement recognized by Plaintiff’s own cited caselaw. (See St. Mary v.\r\nSuperior Ct. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 775.) In any case, even an\r\nunqualified admission would only have established that Plaintiff presented the\r\nVehicle for repairs during the warranty period, not that the repairs were\r\nactually covered by the emissions warranties.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

CONCLUSION

\r\n\r\n

Because Plaintiff fails to raise a\r\ntriable issue that the repairs undertaken during her ownership of the Vehicle were\r\ncovered by an express warranty, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is\r\nGRANTED.

\r\n\r\n

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where ALHAMBRA CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where KNOX ATTORNEY SERVICE INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases where JANNEY & JANNEY is a litigant

Latest cases where FCA US LLC is a litigant